Telegram-herald., 1887-09-20

Trs c@ss sGA,ss1aasollEpsosO
frs4~sstasx Attsrses Cay s4kss tie No
tisE - vts~eesaaas g. sstsss sie Sea
s9ss 1ksrsE1rs ths rE~Sssx-
L2ks IA fs0-

Wnsa ne case u ~. Nathan J Aka,
ch2rgsd sith msaslsagalsr. wzs esiied for
second tE-4l in the s9psFlsE Court ysstsr-
dsy morning Psoseca1,8g Attorney Car
addressed tbs Court saa asksa Leave % eater
nolle prossqai Of thg case gisias his Tea
sons - feilews
u hereby present the following reasons
Tor moving this aoaorz5ie court . ALLOW
aoiis ProSegui - - catered n the above
case.
Oh the l4th dsy Of Nsy. A ID. 1855 the
Respondent VAS bound over 60 lh!s c0Qrt 10
await his triAl upon the charge of statutory
utsnsisughtef. for causing the death Of
Mary Noel ~ procuring an abortion upon
her ~ the use Of drugs aud medicines. or
BY the Use Of al instrument
In the September term Of this court, lsso.
al Information Was nied against said
Aiken. charging him with the ABOVE crime.
also charging him, by the addition Of the
fourth count. with causing her death by
criminal neglect.
Upon the trial the verdict Of guilty was
rendeFed and he case was taken 10 tie So
preme Court upon exceptions before udg-
Tnent aud the verde. SCI aside.
There has bssa no evidences discovered
since the trial. A large portion Of the tes,i-
mony given upon the trial OF the case
against the respondent is declared by the
Supreme CouFt 10 be illegal. and incOm-
peten'. and eau not be uSer upon = new
trial.
= The remaining evidence in the case tend
Ing 10 support the charges contained i n the
second and third counts in the information,
upon which alone the respondent must be
trsed. il tried st all is so meagre and un-
Satisfactory that would not feel justified
in even submitting the case 10 jury upon
il.
| can fnd no testimony 10 sustain the
charge thar drugs and medicines were sd-
ministered 10 the deceased by the respon-
| dent for the purpose OF procuring an abor-
| ti0n except the statement, alleged 10 have
been made by the deceased 10 Mrs. sleight;
and as TO such statements the Supreme
Court uses the following language: We do
| not think the admission of this testimony
can be sustained on any legal grounds. IL
| IS evident from the record Of the trial, as
! We have IL before Us. that this statement Of
| the deceased on Monday evening of what
took place on SATURDAY evening was used
with the most damaging effect against
| the respondent There was no possible
way of disputing it, and it was error TO
| receive IT,
| As 10 the charge that an instrument was
| used Dy the respondent upon the body OF
the deceased for the purpose OF procuring
an abortion, or for any purpose, | am
| unable 10 find any evidence IN the case TO
| sustain H., except the opinion OF the phy-
sicians who conducted the post nortem ex-
| animation.
Expert testimony alone. unsupported by
| any other facts and circumstance, would
not justify a conviction of any kind.
As to the charge OF criminal neglect con-
| timed in the fourth count in the informa-
zion the Supreme Court says: There is
absolutely no evidence tending TO show any
| criminal neglect of the deceased after the
| birth Of the child. Not only was the attend
ance of the respondent persistent and re-
| peated. but ne called other reputable physi-
| clans, one of whom was there at least three
times and on as many different days, and
there is no complaint that his treatment
was faulty, or that be did not do all that he
| reasonably could do 10 save her iiie.'
The fact that the principal witnesses used
upon the trial in this case are absent from
| the State. and that their attendance could
| not be secured except 10 very great expense
to the public, furnishes no reason for this
| notion. Competent and material testimony
| tending TO sustain any charge of crime, II
| known 10 exist. will be obtained, if possible
by the authorities of tho county regardless
OF all expense, and the public wou ii sustain
| them in so doing.
Legitimate expenses, however large, will
| never be taken into consideration in the
performance of the duty 70 ferret out crime
| against the public and punish the perpetra-
tors, but TO use the public money in a
merely experimental trial, TO crafty q SEN
sstional demand, or for personal favor,
! without some evidence proper and legal TO
sustain the charge, would be unjust and
unwsrranted. 10 try and convict q person
upon other than competent and legal iesii-
mony is mockery of justice.
SAMUEL ID. CLAY,
Prosecuting Attorney OF Kent County,
Michigan"
Have the counsel for the defendant any
reasons TO offer why this motion should not
be granted?' asked Judge Burlingame.
| Il know Of no reasons why the motion
should not be granted" said Mr. Earle
grsvsly.
The public prosecutor seems TO have
given good and sufficient reasons why the
case should not be tried" remarked The
court, "and in Difference TO his request and
in consideration Of these facts the court
grants the request Tor nolle prosequi, for
the discharge OF the respondent and for tb,
setting aside OF the bail-the clerk may note
the courts decision accordingly
The respondent was not present bat wa,
represented by bis counsel, y. A. Earle and
l.. A. Ward.
MADE BEEF Or HIM.